I suppose as a counter point you could have a sentence that says "this is an agreement between Jeff, Johnny, Jackson, Jolene, and Jacqueline (hereafter 'Parties'). Obviously Jeff's a party.
And I suppose it's like "A contract is an entity defined as such by one of these things, hereafter its backing document". It does work, it looks like I was just tricked mercilessly by embedded lists. Let that be a lesson to you all. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Surely the parenthetical refers to the last item in the list. I mean, > if it were another modifying clause (eg: I need a fruit, a vegetable, > an omnibus or a piece of chocolate, which must be yellow), it would > only refer to the last item in the list. Or in a sentence like "My > name is Jeff, I wear a hat, sunglasses, a watch, and trousers (which > are yellow), that would surely refer to the trousers, not his whole > attire. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 20:39 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From rule 2166, "Assets" >>> >>> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized >>> regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if >>> such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or >>> another title of regulations, they must be authorized specifically to >>> do so by their parent rule), or (d) contract (hereafter its backing >>> document)" >>> >>> It is clear that a backing document is only a contract from the way >>> the rule is written. This was clearly just added in a non-careful way, >>> but textually, a contract is a backing document and nothing else is. >>> Therefore, there's no recordkeepor because "The recordkeepor of a >>> class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound >>> by, its backing document.". A rule of lower power defines the >>> Treasuror as the recordkeepor for shinies, but that must defer to this >>> higher power rule. >> >> >> I don't think that this is clear at all. There is no grammatical rule that >> forces the referent of the parenthetical to be one element of the list >> rather than the rest of the list, and the rest of the rule is, as you have >> observed, largely nonsensical without it. >> >> -Alexis > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
